Thanks Floyd! I've encountered a lot of ATS nay-sayers in my day, but not for a long time. I thought most of the ATS confusion had been cleared up. I attended the Aquatic Experience Chicago a few weeks ago, my first "show" in five years, and was pleased to hear Julian present on macroalgae, the Dynamic Aquaria paradigm, and the benefits of both in reefs.
Algae Scrubber Basics
- Thread starter srusso
- Start date
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Yes, there are many speakers on the 'circuit' that are now bringing the algae scrubber into the mix when talking about refugiums and the like. But the other side is definitely still there. I've seen posts on here referring to them as "turd scrubber", etc. Believe me, there is a TON of opposition, and some of them seem to make valid aruments on certain points.
I will say that I somewhat disagree that an algae scrubber as sole filtration is a one-size-fits-all, stand-alone type of filtration. When I initially was introduced to the concept, it seems that it was, but over time and from listening to what others have experienced, I can't support that stance anymore in all cases. Some, yes. And maybe all, to an extent. But there are definitely certain types of systems that do not do overly thrive in a scrubber-only system. One such system type is the heavy SPS tank, or even a moderately stocked by "high end" SPS tank. These tanks seem to do much better when some activated carbon and/or a skimmer (even a really cheap and/or undersized one) are added.
There also seem to be certain corals that don't respond well. This again is rather anecdotal, and there is no specific data to use to try and explain some situations, so if your personal experience is the opposite it might have something to do with your specific systems. Which I would love to see one day, except it's like a 10 hour drive....
I will say that I somewhat disagree that an algae scrubber as sole filtration is a one-size-fits-all, stand-alone type of filtration. When I initially was introduced to the concept, it seems that it was, but over time and from listening to what others have experienced, I can't support that stance anymore in all cases. Some, yes. And maybe all, to an extent. But there are definitely certain types of systems that do not do overly thrive in a scrubber-only system. One such system type is the heavy SPS tank, or even a moderately stocked by "high end" SPS tank. These tanks seem to do much better when some activated carbon and/or a skimmer (even a really cheap and/or undersized one) are added.
There also seem to be certain corals that don't respond well. This again is rather anecdotal, and there is no specific data to use to try and explain some situations, so if your personal experience is the opposite it might have something to do with your specific systems. Which I would love to see one day, except it's like a 10 hour drive....
salty joe
Active member
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
When I took that tour of the Smithsonian, again back in the 90's, I was told that Sprung had just been there and that he thought that the exhibit was pretty good. He thought that all they needed to add was passive exposure to carbon to get rid of desolved organics. That is why I started using it but that was a long time ago
I am wondering what he has to say about the ATS world these days. As I remember it, just before his tour, he was one of the most ardent critics of the Dynamic Aquaria paradigm.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
It seems that getting the right sized scrubber is a common problem. Of course it is hard to expect good results if it is under sized. On the other side of the coin, I am wondering if nutrient levels that are consistently too low (over scrubbing) can be bad for many corals.
I am starting to see threads that are dedicated to dosing nitrates and less commonly even phosphates or other chemicals that we normally want to be super low. These threads are mostly populated by people using skimmers and GFO. I think that promoting the growth of bacteria is making some of these issues more prevalent. Some users are starting to define and share optimal ranges for everything, including waste products like N and P. They sometimes identify different ranges for different types of tanks Like SPS only or LPS and mixed.
All that being said, do we need to look at that as a potential problem or has this already been looked at?
I am starting to see threads that are dedicated to dosing nitrates and less commonly even phosphates or other chemicals that we normally want to be super low. These threads are mostly populated by people using skimmers and GFO. I think that promoting the growth of bacteria is making some of these issues more prevalent. Some users are starting to define and share optimal ranges for everything, including waste products like N and P. They sometimes identify different ranges for different types of tanks Like SPS only or LPS and mixed.
All that being said, do we need to look at that as a potential problem or has this already been looked at?
Last edited:
Some History and Clarification
Some History and Clarification
I attended the SWMC in Phoenix in '94, just after "The Reef Aquarium" Vol 1 came out and toward the end of the ATS "debate" in FAMA. Walter Adey, Julian Sprung and Charles Delbeek were all presenters and there was a LOT of ATS discussion with some debate.
Even then, as now, there was very little disagreement amongst those camps . Ninety five percent or more of the difference boiled down to Adey's reluctance to combine ATS with GAC, skimming, UV, ozone and other methods. Adey's goal is different that than of most aquarists and industry people.
As a hobbyist and industry person, I have never hesitated to use GAC if the water color merited it. As long as there is nutrient, preferably ammonia, the ATScrubber will do its thing and provide many benefits. It has no objection to other technologies; whereas, Adey does... due to his goals.
So... we do employ passive GAC when required and we have some retail systems that utilize supplemental skimmers and UV, but these are very much the exception to the rule.
Some History and Clarification
I attended the SWMC in Phoenix in '94, just after "The Reef Aquarium" Vol 1 came out and toward the end of the ATS "debate" in FAMA. Walter Adey, Julian Sprung and Charles Delbeek were all presenters and there was a LOT of ATS discussion with some debate.
Even then, as now, there was very little disagreement amongst those camps . Ninety five percent or more of the difference boiled down to Adey's reluctance to combine ATS with GAC, skimming, UV, ozone and other methods. Adey's goal is different that than of most aquarists and industry people.
As a hobbyist and industry person, I have never hesitated to use GAC if the water color merited it. As long as there is nutrient, preferably ammonia, the ATScrubber will do its thing and provide many benefits. It has no objection to other technologies; whereas, Adey does... due to his goals.
So... we do employ passive GAC when required and we have some retail systems that utilize supplemental skimmers and UV, but these are very much the exception to the rule.
lokii_37
New member
I've been running my ATS for awhile now and gave been getting pretty good growth. I think my CFLs maybe to close because I have less growth in the center and what does grow is much lighter in color. I would say it almost looks bleached. Here are a couple pics before and after cleaning. Anything jump out at you guys?
The last pic is how I have it running. I do light it for both sides but I just moved it to get the shot.
The last pic is how I have it running. I do light it for both sides but I just moved it to get the shot.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
I take it that these are 1) before cleaning 2) after cleaning 3) installed after cleaning
Right?
I would say that you need to increase flow, you are getting decent growth but yes it is starting to show signs of photo inhibition.
the real question still is how is your tank? nutrients OK? nuisance algae under control? If so, no worries
Right?
I would say that you need to increase flow, you are getting decent growth but yes it is starting to show signs of photo inhibition.
the real question still is how is your tank? nutrients OK? nuisance algae under control? If so, no worries
lokii_37
New member
Algae Scrubber Basics
Yes, yes, and yes.
I just up graded my return pump, ehiem 1262, so if I need to increase flow I'll have to look into removing it from the return and running it on its own pump. I will measure to actual flow and see what it is.
In regards to the photo saturation. I put the scrubber lights on a timer last week so they are getting 18hrs of light. I had been running them 24 so it may still be adjusting. Do you think I should decrease the photo period or increase the distance from light to screen?
The tank is looking good. I'm not measuring any N or P but I am getting a little new algae on the very peaks of my rock structures and on my overflow intake.
Yes, yes, and yes.
I just up graded my return pump, ehiem 1262, so if I need to increase flow I'll have to look into removing it from the return and running it on its own pump. I will measure to actual flow and see what it is.
In regards to the photo saturation. I put the scrubber lights on a timer last week so they are getting 18hrs of light. I had been running them 24 so it may still be adjusting. Do you think I should decrease the photo period or increase the distance from light to screen?
The tank is looking good. I'm not measuring any N or P but I am getting a little new algae on the very peaks of my rock structures and on my overflow intake.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
Oh, yeah, definitely never 24/7 on the light. 18 is generally accepted as the max, but you can push it sometimes with LEDs but CFLs usually have an 18 limit (or so they say).
You might try backing off the lights about 1" and give it a few weeks.
What L x W screen, what wattage CFL, how much do you feed?
You might try backing off the lights about 1" and give it a few weeks.
What L x W screen, what wattage CFL, how much do you feed?
lokii_37
New member
I am going redo the box around my screen. There is always about 2-3 inches of water in the bottom and I get no growth down there. The box was an effort to redirect the water back to my skimmer chamber of my sump.
After I measure my flow and do a little redesign I may make my screen a little narrower to match my flow for better efficiency.
After I measure my flow and do a little redesign I may make my screen a little narrower to match my flow for better efficiency.
lokii_37
New member
I'll try moving the lights back.
I'm not home now but I think it is 8-9Wand about 7-8 long I'm feeding about 2 maybe 2-1/2 cubes a day.
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
CFL wattage?
Floyd R Turbo
Either busy or sleeping
yep, back lights off slightly and increase flow or decrease width a bit.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
Do you live there? I moved out of Phoenix in 1990. I started my first tank then and as soon at the book came out, I jumped on it. Sprung's tour must have been in 92 or 3.
Yes I agree. While I do like the au-natural approach in general, I don't have anything against mixing and matching where appropriate. As I said, the reason that I don't have anything else in the system is because of the NPS and other filter type feeders so I want all of the food to stay in the tank as long as possible. That might not be a good idea for someone else.
I often repeat my only caution to newbies which is to pick a primary tool for waste removal, like ATS, vodka dosing, skimming or whatever and learn as much as you can about it. Then don't make other tools so powerful that they over compete for those waste products. Otherwise, your water balances can get out of whack. I would hope that you only use other method to supplement what you have. You can get too much of the same thing.
_shorty_
New member
We try to make it down to your shop as often as we can for as far away as we live. I used to live in TH and go to Rose... But wasn't in he hobby back them.
Anyway, I got in the hobby about 10-11 years ago and back then you ran those massive wet-dry tubes and recommended wet-dry along with most everyone else in the hobby. I guess that is not considering that 'export'? At what point did you decide to stop the wet dry? Because I've considered adding some on my (usually)NO3 limited system, and have often thought wet dry might bring a compliment to the balance (no3 vs po4) that an ATS provides.
SantaMonica
Well-known member
I think you'll find that systems are never limited by N or P. With the urine and respiration constantly going into the water, there is always a supply, and, the photosynthesis of a scrubber can make use of tiny amounts far below the test kit levels.
herring_fish
Crazy Designer
I am not an expert but instead I am a chronic experimenter. I keep telling these same stories, about my experiences, over and over again for different question so here goes again. Please forgive me if you have been reading along from the beginning.
I used a wet-dry when I first started in the hobby and it worked well. I ditched it only because I was going whole hog into the ATS world, not because it wasn’t working. It was going out of favor, in part, because of the big fluctuations of bacteria that sometimes came with using them. These fluctuation sometimes cause crashes because of the oxygen consumption that came with the bacteria spikes.
The use of carbon dosing (vodka sugar and/or vinegar) is a modern version of the wet-dry on steroids. The white cloud of death (low oxygen) is still what needs to be avoided. That is why those users are encouraged to start extremely slow. A smaller wet-dry, used as a secondary supplement, probably wouldn’t run much risk of starving the tank of oxygen.
From what I have read and experienced, bacteria is a big contributor to NO3 limitation and so I would think that a wet-dry could make things worse in that area. I see the carbon dosing people needing to use more and more GFO because bacteria loves NO3 but is not as good at eating up the PO4. Therefore, they are starting to dose NO4 so that the bacteria can get its fix and work on the PO4.
I messed with bacteria, mostly to get the bacteria to feed my corals. Instead of the wet-dry, I had a refugium filed with coral rubble so this is more of an “Nth degree” cautionary tale. I think that the result would be similar although your bacterial levels would probably be much much lower than with a properly sized wet-dry.
Anyway, when I hooked it up, my ATS stopped growing algae almost right away. My NO4 was too close to absolute zero but my PO4 slowly went up. When I started putting poison (NO3 stump remover) in the tank, the ATS re-started and the PO4 started coming back down.
I used a wet-dry when I first started in the hobby and it worked well. I ditched it only because I was going whole hog into the ATS world, not because it wasn’t working. It was going out of favor, in part, because of the big fluctuations of bacteria that sometimes came with using them. These fluctuation sometimes cause crashes because of the oxygen consumption that came with the bacteria spikes.
The use of carbon dosing (vodka sugar and/or vinegar) is a modern version of the wet-dry on steroids. The white cloud of death (low oxygen) is still what needs to be avoided. That is why those users are encouraged to start extremely slow. A smaller wet-dry, used as a secondary supplement, probably wouldn’t run much risk of starving the tank of oxygen.
From what I have read and experienced, bacteria is a big contributor to NO3 limitation and so I would think that a wet-dry could make things worse in that area. I see the carbon dosing people needing to use more and more GFO because bacteria loves NO3 but is not as good at eating up the PO4. Therefore, they are starting to dose NO4 so that the bacteria can get its fix and work on the PO4.
I messed with bacteria, mostly to get the bacteria to feed my corals. Instead of the wet-dry, I had a refugium filed with coral rubble so this is more of an “Nth degree” cautionary tale. I think that the result would be similar although your bacterial levels would probably be much much lower than with a properly sized wet-dry.
Anyway, when I hooked it up, my ATS stopped growing algae almost right away. My NO4 was too close to absolute zero but my PO4 slowly went up. When I started putting poison (NO3 stump remover) in the tank, the ATS re-started and the PO4 started coming back down.
I must be getting confused trying to read too much ATS info too quickly. I've read hundreds of pages both on this site and others this past week. I could have sworn reading about how no3 and po4 are used by algae in a certain ratio and an imbalance of this ratio could explain poor growth in some cases. Perhaps this is because the theory and practice of ATS is changing rapidly and the posts where I read that are now a couple years old?
I'm still trying to figure out if ATS are going to replace skimmers, will get added to the mix of mainstream filtration options, or are pseudo-science like a q-ray or something. Still, the potential is interesting so I continue to process.
- Ian
